MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2801325619 · doi:10.1503/cmaj.171430

Screening for impaired vision in community-dwelling adults aged 65 years and older in primary care settings

2018· article· en· W2801325619 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Brenda J. Wilson, Susan Courage, Maria Bacchus, James A. Dickinson, Scott Klarenbach, Alejandra Jaramillo Garcia, N Sims-Jones, Brett D. Thombs

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Medical Association Journal · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOphthalmology and Visual Health Research
Canadian institutionsOttawa Public HealthUniversity of OttawaJewish General HospitalPublic Health Agency of CanadaUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGuidelineMedicinePrimary careGerontologyImpaired VisionMEDLINEFamily medicineOptometryPolitical sciencePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

KEY POINTS This guideline is available in French at [www.cmaj.ca/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1503/cmaj.171430/-/DC2][1] Impaired vision is an important health burden in both developed and developing countries, particularly among older adults.[1][2] The 2006 Participation and Activity Limitation Survey

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.241
Threshold uncertainty score0.479

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.037
GPT teacher head0.402
Teacher spread0.365 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations14
Published2018
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Medical Association JournalSame topicOphthalmology and Visual Health ResearchFrench-language works237,207